STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

CC NO.292 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

1)       Renu Gupta W/o Praveen Kumar

          Trivedi, aged about 29 years,

2)       Praveen Kumar Trivedi S/o Sheo

          Narayan Trivedi, aged about 29 years,

          Both R/o H.No.43, Lane-18, Arvind Nagar,

          Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

          (present address Flat 202, S.K.Patanjali,

          Rajendra Nagar, Block No.1, Survey No.5,

          Manikonda  500 089, Hyderabad).

… Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad 502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO.307 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

1)       Vijay Rajurkar S/o Purushottam

          Rajurkar, aged about 35 years,

2)       Purushottam Rajurkar

          S/o Hirman Rajurkar, aged about 63 years,

          Both are R/o 1-A-204, Vighnahar Complex,

          Plot No.F/72, Opp: Navrang Bus Stop,

          Sector No.12, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai  410 210.

… Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO.330 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

1)       Priyesh  Mandowara S/o Rajendra

          Mandowara, aged about 31 years,

2)       Nidhi Mandowara W/o Priyesh

          Mandowara, aged about 28 years,

          R/o Flat No.10-03, Block-17,

          Malaysian Township, Kukatpally,

          Hyderabad – 500 072

          (permanent address 394, Gandhi Mohalla,

          Mehidpur Road, Ujjain  456 440 Madhya Pradesh)

… Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 331 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

K.Janardhana Rao S/o K.Basaveswara Rao,

Aged about 38 years, R/o Flat No.108,

Block-3, SR Estates, Talkie Town Lane,

Miyapur, Hyderabad  500 049.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad 500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 336 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

Sushant Dubey S/o SP Dubey,

Aged about 31 years, R/o Flat No.301,

Sai Krishna Apartments, Navodaya Colony,

Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad  500 073.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 337 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

Tej Pratap Singh S/o Chandeswar Singh,

Aged about 34 years, R/o 317, Block-B,

Green Hills Apartments, PJR Road,

Madinaguda, Chandanagar, Hyderabad- 500 050.

(Present address: Flat No.7017, Block-7,

Jana Priya Nile Valley Apartments,

Road No.12, Madhavpuri Hills,

Chandanagar, Hyderabad  500 050).

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad – 500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 338 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

Prashant Dinkar Tighare S/o Dinkar Tighare,

Aged about 32 years, R/o Plot No.79,

Aeronatic Enclave, Qutbullapur, Hyderabad-55.

(Permanent address: near Dhamma Bhumi,

Khed Road, Hanuman Nagar, Brahmapuri,

Chandrapur district 441 206.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 340 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

Amit Gupta S/o Subhash Chander Gupta,

Aged about 36 years, R/o 15/301,

Hillridge Springs, Gachibowli,

Hyderabad  500 032.

(Present address: F-401, Trendset Winz

Nanakramguda, Hyderabad – 500 008 &

Permanent address 13 R Model Town,

Rohtak, Haryana  124 001)

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 341 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

1)       Mukesh Punhani S/o Ved Prakash

          Punhani, aged about 38 years,

2)       Natasha Chanana W/o Mukesh

          Punhani, aged about 32 years,

          R/o 15/301, Hillridge Springs,

          Gachibowli, Hyderabad – 500 032.

…Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 342 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

1)       Vevek Lochub S/o Davinder Singh,

          aged about 37 years,

2)       Nikita Lochub W/o Vevek Lochub

          aged about 36 years,

          R/o Flat No.3D, Jains Akshaya Apartments,

          Camelot Lay-out, Kondapur, Hyderabad.

          (Present address: R/o 222/4, Bercha Road,

          C/o Army War College, Mhow, MP  453 441)

…Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 345 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

1)       Sanjay Kumar Sen S/o Anil Kumar Sen,

          aged about 43 years, Occ: private employee,

2)       Susmita Sen W/o Sanjay Kumar Sen,

          aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife,

          R/o 10/2/3, Ramchand Mukherjee Lane,

          Baranagar, Kolkata  700 036.

…Complainants

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its MD Mr.Hari Challa,

          O/o Aliens Space Station, Tellapur,

          Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak district,

          Hyderabad, Telangana State, Pin Code-502032.

2)       Hari Challa S/o Mr.CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Aliens Space Station, Tellapur,

          Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak district,

          Hyderabad, Telangana State, Pin Code-502032.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Aliens Space Station, Tellapur,

          Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak district,

          Hyderabad, Telangana State, Pin Code-502032.

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         Sri M.Thirumal Rao

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

CC NO. 346 OF 2014

Date of filing : 16.11.2015

Date of Disposal : 07.11.2016

Between :

Kamalesh Khandelwal S/o GP Khandelwal,

Aged about 34 years, R/o 407, Sigma Apartments,

Tara Nagar, Lingampally, Hyderabad.

Rep. by GPA holder Mr.Vipin Khandelwal

S/o GP Khandelwal, aged about 32 years,

R/o A-403, Gopalan Aristocrate Apartments,

Kasturi Nagar, Behind Kanti Sweets,

Bangalore – 560 043, Karnataka State.

…Complainant

AND

1)       M/s Aliens Developers (P) Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Managing Director &

          Joint Managing Director Mr.Hari Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdhary & C.Venkat Prasanna Challa

          S/o CVR Chowdary respectively, O/o Flat No.910,

          Teja Block, My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad- 500 081.

2)       Hari Challa S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Managing Director, M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City,

          Hyderabad  500 081.

3)       C.Venkat Prasanna S/o CVR Chowdhary,

          Joint Managing Director M/s Aliens Developers

          (P) Ltd., O/o Flat No.910, Teja Block,

          My Home Navadweepa Apartments,

          Madhapur, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad-81.

          (present addresses are at Aliens Space Station,

          Tellapur Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

          Medak district, Hyderabad  502 032).

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants   :         M/s V.Appa Rao & B.Srinivas

Counsel for the Opposite parties         :         M/s Alluri Krishnam Raju & G.Dinesh Kumar

Coram                   :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla      …       President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao        …       Member

Monday, the Seventh day of November

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          The complaints arise out of identical facts and similar circumstances, as such, they are disposed of by common order.  The complaint, CC No.206/2014 is taken as lead case.

2.       The case of the Complainants in brief, is that the Opposite party No.1 company represented to them that they are engaged in the business of constructing multistoried apartments and entered into development agreement with the owners of the land comprised in survey nos. 384, 385 and 426/A situate at Tellapur village ,Ramchandrapur Mandal, Medak district to construct high rise apartments under the name and style of ‘Aliens Space Station’ and obtained permission bearing No.HUDA/621/P4/PLG/HUDA/2008 and they would provide all amenities therefor, possession by the end of November, 2011 with a grace period of 9 months and on such representation of the opposite parties, the complainants  entered into agreement of sale for purchase of flats, having super built-up area with one car parking along with undivided share of land.

3.       The complainants entered into agreements of sale in respect of flats at Aliens Space Station, situate at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district for the consideration thereof as detailed in the table below:

4.       The Opposite parties had not commenced construction of the flats even after the stipulated period is expired and there is no possibility of the construction of the flats as also the Opposite parties had not responded to the repeated requests of the Complainants.  The Complainants had sought for return of the amount with interest, compensation and costs of the complaint, in each case, as detailed below.

5.       The opposite parties no.1 and 3 resisted the claim on the premise that the Complainant filed the complaint to gain out of the  breach of contract and the complaint is not maintainable in view of there being  no consumer dispute and the arbitration clause in the agreement of sale providing for arbitration. It is contended that the complaint is filed for recovery of money which is not a consumer dispute and that once the agreement is cancelled and account is settled there is no relationship between the parties.

6.       The opposite parties submitted that on their application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land and FTL clearance, permission was granted for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land on 14.04.2007 and FTL clearance was granted on 30.12.2006 and thereafter HUDA earmarked the land as agricultural zone and the opposite patties have filed application for change of use of the land as commercial use zone. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department notified the land in survey number 384 as residential use zone. The project could not be commenced in view of proposed road under Master Plan, until realignment of the proposed road without affecting the land in survey number 384 is made. Realignment of the proposed road was approved on 03.04.2008 and the permission was accorded approving the building plan on 11.04.2008. The opposite parties have obtained NOC from the AP Fire Services Department on 15.12.2007 and permission was granted in respect of the building with height of 90.40 meters. The opposite parties obtained NOC from Airport Authority on 10.07.2009.

7.       The opposite parties have submitted that HUDA accorded technical approval on 14.10.2009 for ground + 20 upper floors and release of building permission up to 29 floors is awaited. The opposite parties have taken all necessary steps to complete the project at the earliest and the project being massive and due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties, the opposite parties could not complete the project within the time frame. The opposite parties informed the complainants about the delay in completion of the project due to delay in clearance from the authorities concerned. In view of arbitration clause, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

8.       The opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.3/- per sqft in terms of Clause VIII (g) of the Agreement for the delay caused in completing the project and adjust the amount towards dues payable by the complainants. The opposite parties completed some of the Towers and delivered them to the customers. Unexpected global recession, separate Telangana Agitation and the mass people strike affected the construction which is beyond the control of the opposite parties no.1 and 2.  The complainants not bearing with the opposite parties taking advantage of the situation opted to take back their amounts instead of the flats.

9.       The complainants failed to pay balance sale consideration as per the terms of the Agreement. If the complainants cancel the agreement and take back their money, they will forego amount towards cancellation charges and to avoid the same, they approached this Commission.  The opposite parties had taken every care as to the benefit of their customers and incorporated clause in the Agreement as to their liability to pay damages @Rs.3/- per sq.ft. which would show their fairness and the complainants are not entitled to any money or compensation. The Complainants are not entitled for any compensation and their claim is illegal.  The complainants are not entitled for refund of amount and interest thereon and any compensation and costs.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.     The Complainant(s) in

CC No.292/2014 filed affidavit of Praveen Kumar Trivedi and documents, ExA1 to 11

CC No.307/2014 filed affidavit of Vijay Rajukar and documents, Ex.A1 to A11

CC No.330/2014 filed affidavit of Priyesh Mandowara and documents, Ex.A1 to A9

CC No.331/2014 filed affidavit of K.Janardhana Rao and documents, Ex.A1 to A13

CC No.336/2014 filed affidavit of Sushant Dubey and documents, Ex.A1 to A13

CC No.337/2014 filed affidavit of Tej Pratap Singh and documents, Ex.A1 to A16

CC No.338/2014 filed affidavit of Prashant Dinkar Tighare & documents, Ex.A1 to A11

CC No.340/2014 filed affidavit of Amit Gupta and documents, Ex.A1 to A8

CC No.341/2014 filed affidavit of Mukesh Punhani and documents, Ex.A1 to A9

CC No.342/2014 filed affidavit of Vevek Lochub and documents, Ex.A1 to A12

CC No.345/2014 filed affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Sen and documents, Ex.A1 to A18

CC No.346/2014 filed affidavit of Vipin Khandelwal, GPA holder of the Complainant and documents, Ex.A1 to A10.

On behalf of the opposite parties, the Managing Director of the Opposite party no.1 by name Hari Challa filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.B1 to B19, in each case.

11.     The counsel for the Complainants and the Opposite parties had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version in addition to filing written arguments by either of them.  Heard both sides.

12.     The points for consideration are :

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of arbitration clause in the agreement of sale ?

ii)       Whether the complaint is not a ‘consumer dispute’?

iii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

iv)      To what relief ?

13.     POINT NO.1 :  The Complainants entered into “Agreement of Sale” with the Opposite parties for purchase of flats as detailed supra, for the consideration thereof and paid the amounts shown therein, proposed tobe constructed by the Opposite parties, which are not in dispute.  The agreements of sale were entered into between the Complainants and the Opposite parties in respect of the above stated flats as detailed in the table supra.  Thereafter, the Complainants paid the part consideration amount as per the pricing pattern of the flat issued by the Ops on various dates. The agreement of sale provides for reference to arbitration.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties have contended that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the Complainants cannot maintain the complaint before this Commission. 

14.     However, remedy provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and in the light of law laid in “National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 wherein the maintainability of the complaint before consumer forum prior to the complainants having exhausted the other remedy was considered as under:

“The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower.  Rather, it is an optional remedy.  He can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act.  If the grower opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot, subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act.  However, if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act.  Moreover, the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Act makes it clear that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Thus, in view of the ratio laid in aforementioned decision, the consumer has two options, either to proceed for arbitration process or to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  As such, it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement.  For the above reasons, the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

15.     In the arguments, counsel for Complainants reiterated the same facts as averred in the complaint besides stating that the Opposite parties ought to have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act & Rules, 1987 while undertaking such agreements and hence pleading ‘force majeure’ does not arise.  They relied on Section 72 of Indian Contract Act supported by the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) and submitted that the Apex Court opined that grant of interest @ 18% p.a. by way of damages and compensation is justified.  He further relied on decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs.Balbir Singh reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 wherein it is stated “in our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies must be returned with interest @ 18%.”  This Commission perused the said Judgments.  In Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the interest shall be payable from the dates of deposit of the amounts till the date of repayment. 

16.     On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite parties in the arguments submitted that as per agreement, if the Complainants want to cancel the booking of the flat, they shall forego 10% of the total flat cost as charges which is agreed by them and in that regard, relied on Judgment reported in 2009 (2) CPR 197 (NC) : II (2009) CPJ 276 (NC) in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another Vs. Shyam Sunder Tiwari and others, wherein, it is held that “courts cannot add anything or improve upon the terms of contract between the parties.”  However, this Commission perused the said order.  The facts of the said case and facts of the case on hand are different.  In the said case, the Petitioner Authority withdrew the scheme and there was provision for refund of earnest money.  In the case on hand, there is no provision for refund of earnest money.  Admittedly, on failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement by the Opposite parties, the Complainants sought for refund of the amount.  Hence, this Commission does not find any merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for Opposite parties.

17.     POINTS No.2 & 3 : The Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement with the land owners of the land admeasuring Ac.19.26 guntas in survey numbers 383, 385 and 426/A situate at Tellapur village of Ramachandrapuram mandal, Medak district and they agreed to deliver the residential flat to the Complainants in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon and consented thereto and as per specifications given therein.  The Development Agreement is not merely an agreement and in fact, it is “Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attorney”. 

18.     In pursuance of the development agreement, the opposite parties have obtained permission for construction of the residential building on the land and admittedly there has been abnormal delay in completion of the project in so far as this complaint is concerned.  The opposite parties have attributed the delay to the authorities concerned in granting permission and No Objection Certificate etc., as to the cause for delay in completion of the project.  The opposite parties would contend that the cause for delay is beyond their control which is ‘force majeure’. 

19.     The force majeure clause in the Agreement of sale does not include within its ambit the delay caused in granting permission, NOC etc.,  The Opposite parties failed to explain how they could take shelter under the cover of “force majeure”. We may state that the delay caused in obtaining permission or NOC etc., cannot be considered as ‘force majeure’.  The opposite parties ought to have informed the complainants about the delay likely to be caused in obtaining the permission which they failed to.  For that matter, the Opposite parties cannot receive any sale consideration from any person in respect of any flat unless they have obtained permission from HUDA or HMDA. 

20.     The complainants have submitted that owing to failure of the opposite parties in completing the construction of the subject flats, they opted for cancellation of the agreement of sale of flats and the opposite parties have contended that in order to maintain cordial relations with the complainants, they agreed to pay compensation in terms of the agreement which they entered into in normal course with other customers.  The complainants got issued a notice to the Opposite parties through their counsel setting forth series of events of delay and negligence and false promises made by the Opposite parties seeking for refund of the amount on the premise of inaction on the part of the opposite parties.

21.     The opposite parties have promised to complete construction of the flat and hand over its possession to the complainant(s) within the stipulated time therein with a grace period of six/nine months as agreed and on their failure to perform their part of contract, the opposite parties have proposed to pay rents but failed to pay the same.  However, there is no communication from the side of the opposite parties in this regard and the opposite parties have not filed a piece of paper to show their readiness to pay compensation and adjust the same towards the dues payable by the complainants.  Having received the part sale consideration amount, the Opposite parties kept with them without commencing the construction work of the building.

22.     Not keeping-up promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainants have two options left for recovery of the amount, either by filing suit in court of law or by way of filing complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in view of the amount claimed falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.  The contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable is not sustainable. 

23.     The Opposite parties can only receive such amount of sale consideration which would be in accordance with the payment schedule and correspond to the stage of construction of the flats.  However, the Opposite parties had received the sale consideration in excess of what was to be received from the complainants particularly the construction of the building was not yet commenced.  Not keeping-up the promise to complete construction of the building and failure to deliver possession of the flat as also not keeping-up promise to refund the amount as per the terms of the repayment scheduler constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.

24.     The complainants claimed refund of amount paid together with interest besides claim for damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to 10,00,000/-.  The complainants cannot be said to have acquiesced to the delay in construction of the project.  Though the complainants have not disputed that the opposite parties have informed them about the cause for delay in obtaining permission and NOC etc., which does not disentitle them from claiming compensation.  The complainants are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount paid from the date of complaint till realization.  For the reasons stated supra, the Points No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Complainants and against the Opposite parties.

25.     It is pertinent to state here that though the Complainant in CC No.307/2014 claimed to have paid an amount of Rs.20,97,943/-, the documents filed would show that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,20,000/- only to the Opposite parties, we have no hesitation to consider the same. 

26.     POINT No.4 : In the above facts and circumstances, the points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly holding that the Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the Complainants.

27.     In the result, the complaints are allowed holding the Opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainants.  In case, sale deed was executed, the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above direction. The registration charges and stamp duty etc., shall be borne by the developer OP No.1.  Time for compliance four weeks.

28.     (i) CC NO.292/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.24,50,720/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(ii)      CC NO.307/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,20,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(iii)     CC NO.330/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.16,79,120/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(iv)     CC NO.331/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.21,32,893/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(v)      CC NO.336/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,57,583/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(vi)     CC NO.337/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(vii)    CC NO.338/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.17,62,410/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(viii)   CC NO.340/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.28,02,220/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(ix)     CC NO.341/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.28,24,548/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(x)      CC NO.342/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.23,78,526/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(xi)     CC NO.345/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,49,970/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

(xii)    CC NO.346/2014 : In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.19,10,110/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of last payment and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.6,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT           MEMBER

Dated : 07.11.2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC NO.292 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Praveen                                      Affidavit evidence of Hari

Kumar Trivedi.                                                            Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 09.01.2012 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.09651, dated 13.09.2012 for Rs.7,30,288/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of the receipt bearing No.08812, dated 25.12.2011 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of the Tripartite Agreement dated 12.01.2012 entered into between the Complainants, Opposite parties and the Bank of India.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of sanction letter for credit limits above Rs.2. lakhs, dated 12.05.2011 issued by the Bank of India.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of the statement of account of Complainant’s account for the period from 12.01.2012 to 09.10.2014.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of the legal notice, dated 23.09.2014 got issued by the Complainants to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A9   is the Photostat copies of the postal receipts, postal acknowledgement and returned postal cover.

Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.307 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Vijay                                           Affidavit evidence of Hari

Rajurkar, Complainant No.1.                                     Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of sale, dated 30.03.2012 executed by the Ops in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.10002, dated 16.03.2012 for Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.10003, dated 19.03.2012 for Rs.10,00,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of Tripartite Agreement, dated 20.04.2012 entered into by the Complainants, Opposite parties and State Bank of Hyderabad.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of the Arrangement letter-housing finance, addressed by the State Bank of Hyderabad, RACPC, Secunderabad to the Complainants.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of the statement of account of Complainants’ account, for the period from 01.03.2012 to 30.04.2012.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of the legal notice, dated 25.09.2014 got issued by the Complainants to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A9   are two original postal receipts, one postal acknowledgement and one postal returned cover.

Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.330 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Priyesh                                       Affidavit evidence of Hari

Mandowara.                                                                Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of the Agreement of Sale, dated 16.06.2010 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.05324, dated 02.06.2010 for Rs.7,00,000/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of the Home Loan sanction proceedings dated 20.07.2010 issued by the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of the statement of account of Complainant No.1 furnished by the State Bank of India, IE, Kukatpally branch for the period from 20.07.2010 to 05.11.2010.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter communicated by the Ops to the patrons.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of the legal notice, dated 08.11.2014 got issued by the Complainants to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A7   are two original postal receipts showing posting of Ex.A6 notice; original postal acknowledgement of the OP No.1 and original postal returned cover.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of the OP No.1 Company, dated 21.01.2006 furnished by the Registrar of Companies.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of Form-32 furnished by the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.331 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of K.Janardhana                            Affidavit evidence of Hari

Rao.                                                                             Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of the Agreement of sale, dated 06.01.2011 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.06187, dated 15.12.2010 for Rs.5,50,000/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.05842, dated 16.12.2010 for Rs.4,50,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.06670, dated 31.01.2011 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.06673, dated 04.02.2011 for Rs.1,77,631/-.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07176, dated 28.02.2011 for Rs.3,33,000/-.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07268, dated 03.03.2011 for Rs.44,631/-.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of appraisal letter issued by the Ops to the patrons.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of the legal notice, dated 26.11.2014 got issued by the Complainants to the Ops.

Ex.A10 are two original postal receipts showing sending of Ex.A9 notice and one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 furnished by the Registrar of Companies.

Ex.A12 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies.

Ex.A13 is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.06547, dated 11.02.2011 for Rs.3,77,631/-.

CC NO.336 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Sushant                                     Affidavit evidence of Hari

Dubey.                                                                         Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 22.06.2010 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of Sale deed, dated 10.05.2012 executed by the Ops in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of the Construction Agreement, dated 10.05.2012 executed by the Ops in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.06706, dated 07.07.2010 for Rs.13,95,049/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.05019, dated 28.06.2010 for Rs.6,80,028/-.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.05321, dated 29.05.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of the Operations Letter, dated 07.07.2010 obtained from the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of the statement of account of complainant, for the period from 01.04.2010 to 01.04.2011.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A10 is office copy of the legal notice got issued by the Complainants to the Ops, dated 30.11.2014.

Ex.A11 are two original postal receipts; one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A12 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A13 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.337 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Tej                                              Affidavit evidence of Hari

Pratap Singh.                                                              Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 05.05.2012 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.10181, dated 24.04.2012 for Rs.1,20,000/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.09026, dated 25.04.2012 for Rs.4,80,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.10346, dated 11.06.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.11200, dated 05.07.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.11199, dated 05.08.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.11017, dated 06.09.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.11256, dated 05.10.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.11330, dated 05.11.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of Arrangement letter-Housing Finance, dated 23.05.2012 issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, RACPC, Secunderabad for Rs.36,93,120/- in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of the statement of account of Complainant’s account, for the period from 01.05.2012 to 30.06.2012.

Ex.A12 is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A13 is office copy of the legal notice got issued by the Complainants to the Ops, dated 30.11.2014.

Ex.A14 are two original postal receipts; one original postal acknowledgement and one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A15 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A16 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.338 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Prashant                                    Affidavit evidence of Hari

Dinkar Tighare.                                                           Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 29.07.2010 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.06738, dated 30.08.2010 for Rs.11,62,410/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.05786, dated 18.08.2010 for Rs.3,50,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.05751, dated 03.07.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of the Arrangement Letter-Home Loan, dated 28.08.2010 addressed by State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad to theComplainant.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of the statement of account of complainant, for the period from 30.08.2010 to 29.11.2014.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A8   is office copy of the legal notice got issued by the Complainants to the Ops, dated 30.11.2014.

Ex.A9   are two original postal receipts; one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.340 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Amit                                            Affidavit evidence of Hari

Gupta.                                                                         Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 22.07.2011 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainant.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07099, dated 02.06.2011 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07771, dated 12.06.2011 for Rs.25,42,500/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A5   is the office copy of legal notice, dated 04.12.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A6   are two original postal receipts; one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.341 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Mukesh                                      Affidavit evidence of Hari

Punhani.                                                                     Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement for Reservation of Flat, dated 12.07.2011 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07763, dated 08.06.2011 for Rs.18.30,427/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07762, dated 08.06.2011 for Rs.8,54,620/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.07098, dated 02.06.2011 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A6   is the office copy of legal notice, dated 04.12.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A7   are two original postal receipts; one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.342 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Vevek                                          Affidavit evidence of Hari

Lochub.                                                                       Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.07.2009 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.03724, dated 10.08.2009 for Rs.5,55,000/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.03537, dated 07.07.2009 for Rs.9,45,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.03680, dated 02.09.2009 for Rs.8,78,526/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of request made by Complainant to the Axis Bank Ltd., Hyderabad for release of first disbursement of loan amount, dated 24.08.2009.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of receipt, dated 10.08.2009 passed by the Ops acknowledging the receipt of Rs.15,00,000/-.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of statement of account of the Complainant’s bank account, for the period from 14.11.2000 to 14.11.2012.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A9   is the office copy of legal notice, dated 25.11.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A10 are two original postal receipts; one original returned postal cover.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A12 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

CC NO.345 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Sanjay                                        Affidavit evidence of Hari

Kumar Sen.                                                                 Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainants :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 18.11.2008 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt for Rs.20,49,970/-, dated 10.08.2008.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.02431, dated 18.08.2008 for Rs.25,000/-.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.02438, dated 25.08.2008 for Rs.2,25,000/-.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.02779, dated 13.09.2008 for Rs.1,50,000/-.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.02902, dated 29.10.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A7   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.02714, dated 06.11.2008 for Rs.1,25,000/-.

Ex.A8   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.02748, dated 20.12.2008 for Rs.12,08,277/-.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.03228, dated 11.04.2009 for Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.03458, dated 21.05.2009 for Rs.66,693/-.

Ex.A11 is Photostat copy of letter addressed by the Ops to the Complainants, dated 15.03.2011 offering the discount of Rs.400/- per sft. on the existing base price of the flat.

Ex.A12 is Photostat copy of the home loan sanction proceedings dated 20.12.2008 addressed to the Complainants by the State Bank of India, RACPC, Hyderabad.

Ex.A13 is Photostat copy of the letter dated 10.10.2013 addressed by the Complainant to the Ops.

Ex.A14 is Photostat copy of e-mails addressed by the Complainant to the Ops.

Ex.A15 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 27.10.2014 got issued by the Complainants to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A16 are six Photostat copies of postal receipts, dated 27.10.2014.

Ex.A17 are the Photostat copies of postal acknowledgements numbering (3).

Ex.A18 are the Photostat copies of returned postal covers numbering (3).

CC NO.346 OF 2014

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :                                                       For Opposite parties :

Affidavit evidence of Vipin Khandelwal,                      Affidavit evidence of Hari

GPA holder of Complainant.                                       Challa.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.A1   is Photostat copy of Agreement of Sale, dated 03.07.2009 executed by the Opposite parties in favour of the Complainants.

Ex.A2   is Photostat copy of receipt bearing No.03634, dated 15.07.2009 for Rs.5,13,844/-.

Ex.A3   is Photostat copy of the General Power of Attorney, dated 12.12.2014 executed by the Complainant in favour of Vipin Khandelwal.

Ex.A4   is Photostat copy of Operations letter dated 21.08.2009 addressed by the borrower (Complainant) to the Assistant General Manager (RACPC), State Bank of India, Hyd.

Ex.A5   is Photostat copy of the statement of account of the Complainant, for the period from 01.08.2009 to 16.07.2014.

Ex.A6   is Photostat copy of the appraisal letter addressed by the Ops to its patrons.

Ex.A7   is the office copy of legal notice, dated 19.12.2014 got issued by the Complainant to the Opposite parties.

Ex.A8   are two original postal receipts, dated 19.12.2014.

Ex.A9   is Photostat copy of Certificate of Incorporation, dated 21.03.2006 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of OP No.1 company.

Ex.A10 is Photostat copy of the Form-32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, in respect of the OP No.1 company.

For Opposite parties (common in all cases) :

Ex.B1   Copy of Lr.No.252931/4/2007 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Vice, Chairman, HUDA, Hyderabad for change of land use.

Ex.B2   Copy of G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (I1) Department, dated 03.04.2008 (HMDA revised master plan).

Ex.B3   Copy of (report) Lr.No.D1/3601/2007, dated 05.05.2007 addressed by District Collector, Medak to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, HUDA along with map.

Ex.B4   Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for HUDA area held on 29.02.2008 at 3-00 pm in the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + Ground + 13 Upper Floors).

Ex.B5   Copy of Lr.No.1927/Misc/Plg/H/2008, dated 31.03.2008 addressed by HUDA to the Principal Secretary to Government for 30 meters road alignment in Sy.No.384 & 385.

Ex.B6   Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HUDA/2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to OP No.1 approving 4 basements + Ground + 13 upper floors).

Ex.B7   Copy of Lr.No.621/Pr/Plg/HUDA/ 2008, dated 11.04.2008 addressed by HUDA to Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments.

Ex.B8   Copy of minutes of meeting of multi-storeyed building committee for MSB in HUDA area held on 05.06.2008 at the chambers of Vice-Chairman, HUDA (4 basements + ground + 29 upper floors).

Ex.B9   Copy of Lr.No.621/P4/Plg/HMDA/2008, dated 14.10.2009 addressed by HMDA to the Executive Authority, Tellapur Gram Panchayat according technical permission of residential apartments (4 basements + ground + 20 upper floors).

Ex.B10 Copy of Lr.No.SEIAA/AP/MDK-14/08, dated 12.08.2008 addressed by State Level Enviornment Impact Assessment Authority, Hyderabad to according environmental clearances to Opposite parties.

Ex.B11 Copy of Lr.No.19038/I1/2009, dated 24.11.2009 addressed by Principal Secretary to Government to Ops (clearance of GOMs.No.111).

Ex.B12 Copy of letter addressed by Opposite parties, dated 08.10.2010 to the HMDA, Hyd (revised application and plans for building permission consisting of 3 basement + ground + 29 upper floors).

Ex.B13 Copy of Lr.No.10186/MP1/Plg/HMDA dated 28.03.2011 addressed by HMDA to the Ops to pay publication charges for change of land use from residential to commercial.

Ex.B14 Copy of cash acknowledgement receipt bearing No.825631 for Rs.1,000/- in File No.2011-2-431 for new water connection.

Ex.B15 Copy of Certificate of best compliments issued by Indian Green Building Council in favour of the Opposite parties company.

Ex.B16 Copy of certificate of best compliments awarded by Cityscape in favour of the Opposite parties company.

Ex.B17 Copy of letter addressed by the Opposite parties to the purchaser by name S.Pragathi intimating to take possession of the flat, dated 02.11.2015.

Ex.B18 Copies of photographs of flat occupants occupying the completed flats.

PRESIDENT           MEMBER

Dated : 07.11.2016